Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Alpha Mail: the collective is the personal

MM finds it hard to grasp why women take offense on behalf of others:

Why the hell do women get offended on BEHALF of other women? I seriously just DO NOT "get it". If you can possibly explain this nonsense to me, I would very much appreciate it. But I'm drawing a serious blank on my end. It is so non-nonsensical. I want to be enraged, but I know females typically make no sense whatsoever. So I'm not THAT mad... just confused.

This is precisely what is meant by female solipsism. Perhaps you've heard the song "I'm Every Woman". To a certain extent, it genuinely represents the way women think. It's mostly subconscious, insofar as I can tell, but most men have observed that a comment made about women in general is usually interpreted by a woman who hears it as applying to her.

For example, I once commented about the mistake that had been made in hiring a young woman who was leaving the company because she was getting married and intended to have children as soon as possible. My comment enraged a middle-aged woman who happened to be an HR director. The woman was furious at the thought that the single young woman should not have been hired for that job even though it was her own personal policy to not hire single young women for that very reason. In fact, the only reason I made the comment was to observe that what had happened tended to justify her policy.

The HR director's solipsism led her to react to my comment from the perspective of being the hypothetical young woman being rejected for a job herself, not the middle-aged HR director who would be held responsible by the executives for multiple failed hires.
Basically, you have to understand that any time you make a comment about any woman, you are believed to have made a comment about the specific women in the conversation. If you wish to avoid provoking solipsistic reactions, it is very easy, all you need to do is make sure that all of your comments which can be related to women in any way are made in precisely the same way you would talk about a child in front of its mother.

Remember that women are seldom any more interested in knowing what men actually think about anything than men are in keeping up on the latest celebrity gossip and Hollywood fashions. They mostly just want to hear that you think all women are smart, pretty, and wonderful. So, if your objective is to avoid triggering solipsistic responses, just tell them what they want to hear and keep your thoughts to yourself.

88 comments:

It has to be some kind of herd-type thing -- i.e.. women compete like cats with each other generally but when threatened by a member of the out-group (i.e., men), they circle the wagons because a threat to one is a threat to all. I think this dovetails with the research saying that women have much stronger favorable preference for other women than men do for other men -- women are their own "in-group", and this particularly comes to the fore when threatened by men in any way -- including, of course, in the form of a comment.

I think women are interested in what men think, but generally recoil when anything is expressed that could be negative about women in general, because this is perceived as a threat -- that is the case even when you are explicitly referring to a different woman than the one you are speaking with. It's almost a reflex.

This is just plain true. I'm a woman, but I'm also very much my Daddy's girl and a first born and also maybe slightly brain-damaged, so I've been used to tamping down that instinct to take offense all my life. It took me until I was about 30 to realize the reason other women were always policing each other and me in this way. Actually, I don't think I'd have realized it at all if I hadn't been reading VD all these years. I'm amazed at the level of outrage women can muster for people who they don't know, or agree with, or even like very much, just because they're women. Or gay. Or black. Or any other protected group whose feelings might be hurt by a little straightforward talk.

MM - also please be aware that often women seek validation. I have noticed this a lot. Not all women, but frequently enough, women I know will approach me with a "problem" or "opinion", a situation that requires facts, logic or truth to be resolved in a meaningful way. When I give them that (the logic, the truth, the facts) they get really upset. What they were seeking is validation, they didn't give a care about any kind of reality. Even though I am a woman I have had many painful conversations such as these until I figured it out. You might not have a woman approach you for this reason because of your gender, but I get it a lot and have learned the hard way. Maybe you can benefit from this advice.

BTW...this post made me laugh a little. It is true that we women have our own rules for communication! And you men know how we women just love to change the rules! Not that we are going to tell you beforehand that we are doing so... ;)

MM - one more thing. If we women get into a huff, get all flushed and bothered...remember to enjoy it! It's times like these you get a glimpse of women's passion, silliness and mystery. It's who we are! Depending on the woman, you just may need to make amends afterwards...(but in those cases the amends are worth it...).

Think of it as a test that you can pass by showing no remorse and offering no consolation. After all, you did not attack her, so you have no reason to be sorry; no requirement to justify what you said, if it was true; and, no obligation to do anything to "make it better".

I had a GF who would stamp her foot and cry "I am offended!" at every little thing. I quickly learned that the best response was to shrug and say, "You'll get over it."

Pepper talked about women seeking validation when asking you about a problem. When you give them an efficient solution, they either go ask someone else, who may not have such a good solution (less knowledge).

What is the process behind this behaviour? This happened to me quite often..

Many times the woman already has an answer in her head. She is looking for someone to confirm this answer (often times a man to show this man how smart she is). When the man does not give the answer she is looking for (he didn't validate her) she goes to look for the validation elsewhere.

Women often don't want answers, they want reassurance. Often women have hurt feelings or are offended and need a sympathetic ear to soothe their feathers. It's a totally different language because she will ask a question with words, but be wanting a response that is emotional and stabilizing. Try "understanding" her. Often she will give you the resolution. All you have to do is confirm it.

This is all true, but... it's true of other groups too. If you start to talk about the high levels of black crime, for instance, it doesn't matter how carefully you qualify your language to make it clear that you're not talking about all blacks, you will get people reacting as if you're talking about them personally. The same thing is true of other minority groups, or nationalities, or political parties, or people of a particular hair color: as soon as you say "many people in group A tend to do X," you get someone in your face saying, "Hey, I'm in group A and I've never done X in my life, you bigot!"

The only group that doesn't do this seems to be men. If you say "Men tend to do X," most men will shrug and say, "Maybe so. I don't do that, but I'm not all men." You do get some push-back on stuff like that from MRA groups and the like, but I think most men feel like it would be whiny.

So I wonder: is it just an innate in-group thing, regardless of the group, but for some reason men don't feel like they're part of a "men" group? Or is it that being a member of a protected group causes you to take on effeminate attitudes when negative things are said about that group?

Actually, reading back over your comments, Pepper, you might not like me very much. (Kidding.) I don't see why men should that kind of silliness at all enjoyable. When I ask a man if my butt looks big in these pants, I mean it. PLEASE don't let me go out the door looking that way!

Yeah and that's why if a man can learn the language of women he is miles ahead of a lot of people.

A question man-man...seeking information, solution, or advice. Usually gets an answer.A question man-woman...seeking information, solution, or advice. She sees it as being put on the spot or being judged.A question woman-man...reassurance. Doesn't want an answer or the truth. Usually gets something that resembles an answer or truth from a man and has an emotional reaction to it.

Now with women I keep things to mostly statements. Questions are mostly kept superficial. I think you get lied to less this way and the conversations are better. When a woman asks me a question...most of the time I keep things vague or funny.

@GAHCindy - Great point. No woman wants to go out the door if her butt looks big. This is a classic example of man saving woman - from herself! I know a couple where the man and woman shop together so he can advise her as to what she can, and can't wear. It's pretty smart.

Why should my goal ever be to avoid solipsistic responses? Women in the developed world aren't confronted with the irrationality of their own behavior nearly enough. If anything, we should be provoking these reactions more.

pepperMM - one more thing. If we women get into a huff, get all flushed and bothered...remember to enjoy it! It's times like these you get a glimpse of women's passion, silliness and mystery. It's who we are!

This is like telling a man to enjoy the melt-down temper tantrums of his 2 year old child - because it demonstrates the "passion" and "mystery" of a toddler. The alternative - demanding that a woman act like an adult human if she wishes to be treated like one - doesn't seem to be an option.

Depending on the woman, you just may need to make amends afterwards...(but in those cases the amends are worth it...).

No, she would need to make amends afterwards, for acting like a toddler. Whether those amends would be worth bothering with or not would depend upon the situation - how much damage her temper tantrum caused, just for a start.

Not everyone finds destruction of personal property, false accusations of crimes, public screeching of lies, and other well known female displays of temper to be "cute" or "lovable".

Well, I can certainly see why you don't find "false accusations of crimes, public screeching of lies" etc. to be cute. They are not. But these behaviors are not generally the results of small talk around the water cooler or the brief exchanges that occur over the dividers of cubicles (the situations to which I was referring). There is a marked difference between women being women, women being children and women being psychotic. And, increasingly women do act more like childish psychos than adults. But, I will still hold to my original idea that women, when exasperated in a non-threatening situation (perhaps at home or among friends etc.) will inevitably act irrational. This is woman's nature. Man cannot change it. All he can do is shrug us off. If he's lucky, he can laugh about it. If a man is really good, his chiding can get her to laugh at herself. Then, she will see that she is the one who is being irrational and will retract her nonsense.

You arer 100% correct. In a womans eyes, another woman can do no wrong. I had a woman cheat on me and another woman I had told was defending her and denying it. ROFLMFAO ! Caught in the act too. These women are retarded.

Many times the woman already has an answer in her head. She is looking for someone to confirm this answer (often times a man to show this man how smart she is). When the man does not give the answer she is looking for (he didn't validate her) she goes to look for the validation elsewhere.

Or she's not looking for an answer, she's just looking for someone to vent to. In which case the best response is a Sheldon Cooper "there, there".

@ Josh: You're usually right that she just wants to vent, but every once in a while, despite the Hamster, a woman knows she actually made a decision. In that case, she's seeking confirmation that the decision she's made is correct.

The root of the problem is misidentifying the group for whom instinctively to go to bat. Feminism wants to decouple women from family and drive a wedge between men and women, so "my group" is identified along individual lines (my sex, my ethnicity, my whatever) instead of "my family".

Is it wrong for a woman to instinctively defend her family? No. Wouldn't you men like your wives to jump straight to your defense at the first hint of negativity from an "outsider"? It's like it's not wrong for men to be aggressive or able to detach emotionally; the misapplication is where you go wrong.

We women need to start remembering that our duty is to our men and our children FIRST, and feminists need to stop lying and saying that we'll lose our identity (whatever that means). Then the groupism will find its proper channels, and garbage like this will happen a lot less.

You're usually right that she just wants to vent, but every once in a while, despite the Hamster, a woman knows she actually made a decision. In that case, she's seeking confirmation that the decision she's made is correct.

That's when I generally ask, "so what did you decide to do?" After hearing her response, I usually end with, "well, let me know how that works out"

Of course, it's a different situation if the woman in question is your wife.

Solipsism does not demand cruelty, for pity's sake. It is neither best exposed, nor often corrected that way. It is just the way women are.

Cruelty is best reserved for idiocy and arrogance. Attacking solipsism would be like being cruel to a woman for having breasts.

You can't shame a woman out of being a woman and I don't know why you'd want to. Solipsism isn't a bad thing. Solipsism is a woman's watchdog - a natural defense. Now, open the gate for it, and yeah, it will tear up the neighborhood and leave her blaming you. But as long as it stays on her property, it serves a purpose.

Now, some women benefit by being made aware of their solipsism - they can, in effect, be taught to be better dog owners - but cruelty isn't the smartest route for that. It is far more prudent to learn how to be friendly with the dog, sometimes even play with it, than it is to shame a woman for keeping one at all.

PepperWell, I can certainly see why you don't find "false accusations of crimes, public screeching of lies" etc. to be cute. They are not. But these behaviors are not generally the results of small talk around the water cooler or the brief exchanges that occur over the dividers of cubicles (the situations to which I was referring).

No? I disagree.

An improperly handled situation involving a female in the work place can quite easily devolve to her bursting into tears, and rushing off to H.R. There, in the company of other women, she is free to shriek lies and level false accusations of "harassment" and "hostile workplace" that leads to some poor beta getting written up per the corporate manual. Then he's supposed to make amends, as you say. If he is foolish enough to interact with said woman in the future, he can lose his job. So sooner or later he will learn that he should never talk with women at work except when absolutely required to do so by job necessity, he should never be alone on an elevator in in the break room with one, and he should generally avoid them. Because at any time, one of them could march off in a huff, and return with some butch dyke from HR in tow, ruining his day at the very least. If it happens enough times he's looking for another job. And even if she's oh-so-sorry, and didn't "mean for it to happen that way", he's still unemployed. Or in the domestic situation, she may plead with the cops not to really arrest him on the bogus DV charge she made over the phone "just to teach him a lesson" but he's going to jail anyway.

And he's supposed to make amends to her, as you said; H.R. or the cops, either way, it's his fault she had her toddler melt-down, right?

Sure, a man with Game is much less likely to face this; cocky-funny will handle it as a rule, agree and amplify can work as well. But most men don't have any Game at all. Avoidance is the path of least effort and resistance - remember, a workplace is not supposed to be a daycare for adult children, men at least are expected to produce something more than good feelings in their female cow-orkers.

Game is important to men for a lot of reasons, not just pickups, or LTR's. It's important for any man in any big-corp for survival. It shouldn't be, but it is.

There is a marked difference between women being women, women being children and women being psychotic.

So you say. Shall I believe you, or my lying eyes?

And, increasingly women do act more like childish psychos than adults. But, I will still hold to my original idea that women, when exasperated in a non-threatening situation (perhaps at home or among friends etc.) will inevitably act irrational. This is woman's nature. Man cannot change it. All he can do is shrug us off.

At work it is easier to just avoid women, except when absolutely necessary. Because thanks to "harassment" regs, you women have a virtual shock-collar around the neck of every beta man you come in contact with. Imagine your work place with each woman carrying a remote control that activates 50,000 volt shocks in the nearest man, with only a few exceptions. Some of you rarely, if ever, push the button. Others push that button all day, every day, around every man they are near. Seriously, look at your cube farm or whatever it is with that in mind. See how many of the men act towards women? That's why.

If he's lucky, he can laugh about it. If a man is really good, his chiding can get her to laugh at herself. Then, she will see that she is the one who is being irrational and will retract her nonsense.

If he has Game, he can do that. I've done it. Most men don't have Game. So to them, women are like toddlers carrying machineguns. Capricious, borderline psychotic, and extremely dangerous.

Anonymous,Been there, done that, have such a wife. She knows that woman's suffrage is a huge force moving the country leftward, and would cheerfully surrender it were it taken from all women. But then I'm a patriarch and she's into that.

Anonymous, if she really has an IQ of 140, those things should be so obvious as to not require explanation...

Signe, thanks for an example of what VD wrote about in the OP. I replied as a man, based on my own experience with women. You immediately sought to deny my own life experience, and in a nifty passive-aggressive manner, because my opinion is ungood in Team Woman terms. The alternative - to admit that some men find women to be untrustworthy based upon their own hard-earned experience - rouses up your in-group preference because (all together, now) the collective is the personal.

PS: Signe, hope that your health issues are either not serious, or resolved successfully, whichever is better.

Signe, thanks for an example of what VD wrote about in the OP. I replied as a man, based on my own experience with women.

And based on your own experience, you pronounced the differing experiences of others impossible. We can go back and forth playing the game of "who's more solipsistic" and "who doesn't actually want to talk about a solution", but that won't really get anyone anywhere useful, will it?

You immediately sought to deny my own life experience,

No, I acknowledge your life experience. I just pointed out it's not universal nor does it have to be.

and in a nifty passive-aggressive manner,

I learned it from the best.

because my opinion is ungood in Team Woman terms.

Your opinion is damning of feminism, as it should be. But it's also an opinion that could potentially get in the way of a real, true solution: getting rid of Team Woman by understanding that Team Woman is the misapplied instinct to defend "my group".

I'm not sure why anything short of throwing up one's hands in despair or abject self-flagellation proves that a girl is batting for "Team Woman".

The alternative - to admit that some men find women to be untrustworthy based upon their own hard-earned experience

On the contrary. I admit it freely. There's a problem here, and it's a horrible injustice. You shouldn't have to feel that way; nobody should ever have given you cause.

No buts.

- rouses up your in-group preference because (all together, now) the collective is the personal.

One of the rules of Vox's blogs that I've learned is that people are within their rights to respond in the same manner they're addressed. In this case, I was saying something neutral and, I hoped, useful, and you came back with a variant "Yeah right."

If you don't want nasty, don't bring nasty.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help YOU here. You're spouting despair based on your experiences ("Not possible; I didn't see that happen so it doesn't happen"). So I didn't rub your back in small circles and croon, "Poor baby, you're absolutely right, women are bad bad creatures"; that doesn't make me the enemy or even ratifying the bad behaviors of my sex.

Chill out, look up, and try to find ways to encourage women to use the instinct the way it's supposed to be used. This can't go on forever, literally.

PS: Signe, hope that your health issues are either not serious, or resolved successfully, whichever is better.

the human female is a herd animal, she hates to be told that of course, but then the modern female hates the truth in any, and all, forms

most females extrapolate ANY comment by a male about ONE women to be exactly directed at themselves, and they will make you pay in every legal and extra-legal way they can find, to teach you not to offend against The Team

so now the West consists of fem-totalitarian nations, in which EVERY FEMALE is the 24/7 prosecutor, judge, and jury of all male thought and expression . . . with a cop/court system backing her up 100 percent

because criticism of ANY individual woman is an offense against ALL women, we see the intellectual and communications lockdown of the government, schools, and media, and the subsequent installation of a tyrannous gynocracy to ensure that each/all females are never challenged nor corrected by their lessers . . . mere oppressor males (who are not herd creatures, and dont give a slimy shit what happens to their brothers)

sisterhood is VERY real, just look around you anywhere

brotherhood is nonexistent

that's why jesus didnt run around the planet trying to foster more sisterhood

Anonymous, if she really has an IQ of 140, those things should be so obvious as to not require explanation...

Unfortunately, "should" does not negate solipsism. Women have been taught how so very important the right to vote is from kindergarten. "But my vote doesn't do that" and "It's so very important" can trump out IQ more often than not.

It is absolutely an impossibility to talk to women about anything of any import without sugary language, lots of "feelings" words and other fluffy garbage that is generally useless.

I have completely given up any thought of having a reasonable, rational or logical conversation with a woman about any topic that has importance above and beyond which laundry soap she uses to wash her kids underpants and why.

I realized early on that left-leaning women were bad but have recently found just as many idiotic, philosophically inconsistent, irrational women on the right as well.

They are all fucking nuts. Glad I am female and heterosexual - all of my interactions with them are therefore within my control and I usually respond by spending as little time as possible. I have one or two good girlfriends who "get it" but most of them are just nuts.

In the horse world we have a technical term, it is "She's a Dumb Bitch!" and there are LOT of them (women are very over-represented in the horse world.)

I'm the MM in the OP, I emailed Vox after a baffling incident at work yesterday where a dimwit female freaked out over a minor prank I did on anther woman's desk. (And I'm home sick today so I didn't even get to see the results.) She was in a major huff about it. Actually, I won't be surprised if my boss chews me out about it when I go in because this cow told her. All for something the "victim" is just going to roll her eyes over.

But the main reason I wrote was because of how many incidents where women at work ask - not me volunteering info - about what I want in a woman.

Personally, I love having simple, reasonable standards that wipe out most of the women in front of you for whatever reasons. Seeing their faces is priceless. These are MARRIED women outraged over my not wanting to marry them. Too funny.

But then even mentioning a Biblically-submissive attitude as a plus is met with outrage and accusations of my wanting to be an abusive husband. The funny part is that when I dated a former co-worker they know, she was completely submissive in attitude the entire time we dated. And I treated her great.

So these nosy ancient hippos get mad about honest answers to questions they - for whatever reasons - need to know.

And they circle the wagons for a possible mate of mine that I haven't even met yet.

These are MARRIED women outraged over my not wanting to marry them. Too funny.

Well, yeah. This is a failure to provide affirmation, a big no-no in the Circle of Sisters. By not saying "yes, you are attractive", you have said "no, you are not attractive", and that is an insult, sir. An insult.

But then even mentioning a Biblically-submissive attitude as a plus is met with outrage and accusations of my wanting to be an abusive husband.

We already have a resistance to submission as part of the curse. Feminism played to it and amped it up. It takes a lot to break the programming nowadays.

Doesn't make it right, of course. I just thought it might help to know.

The folks I work with and the company I work for are both so socialist and feminist-centric even ~I~ am afraid of doing/saying something wrong!!

And I am female!!

I really watch what I say and I absolutely do not voice my opinion about anything that doesn't have something do with the performance of disk or database ... stay on topic, stay on topic, stay on topic. Best advice I can send your way.

We have retarded HR to deal with at times. I recently had to go face an inquiry board over some bitch that should have been on meds initiating a confrontation while I was in "her" office visiting a friend. This was a woman I didn't know and to my knowledge I'd never spoken to her in my life. And she was accusing me of intimidation when she was craning her neck to give me an evil eye 30 feet away.

So I know the possibility is there.

But as for my co-workers, I brazen it out and never back down. I'm the same with women everywhere.

The problem isn't that you, specifically, don't want to marry them. Based on my own reactions in situations like this, these women may be extrapolating your standards to all men, including their husbands. It's highly likely, given the way you describe them, that their marriages aren't great. Since they fail to meet the standards you outlined, this suggests their unhappy marriages might actually be their own fault.

If you provoke the same reaction from unmarried women, as well, my guess is they think all men in their potential dating pool share your standards, and they thus feel excluded.

My dad is probably right when he says that most of women's annoying behavior, from the little stuff all the way to extreme feminism, is explained by the fact that women hate to be excluded.

I think this ultimately comes down to biological reality; in the raw SMP women exchange their fertility for men's utility.

In other words, at it’s most basic level, what women bring to the table is simply themselves. Men have to demonstrate their value, their utility, or at least the potential of it. Men have to work to do this, which means the ways that men can promote themselves in the SMP are limited only by their imaginations. For women, their SMP value is pretty much set at conception.

Team Woman is simply acting to protect Brand Woman. For when your biggest asset in the SMP is ‘being a woman’, you absolutely cannot allow that brand to be tarnished.

Feminism is pretty much managing to crap all over Brand Woman though…..

And now the Team Woman disclaimer; yes I know men and women have all sorts of other attributes that each find attractive about the other – I’m referring to the basics here.

Many times the woman already has an answer in her head. She is looking for someone to confirm this answer (often times a man to show this man how smart she is). When the man does not give the answer she is looking for (he didn't validate her) she goes to look for the validation elsewhere."

SigneWouldn't you men like your wives to jump straight to your defense at the first hint of negativity from an "outsider"?

A ManSure. I'd like a unicorn to ride on right up the rainbow, too...

IreneIt does happen.

You misspelled the word "did", or perhaps the words "used to".

My grandmother would absolutely flay anyone who even hinted a criticism of my grandfather in her hearing.

I have seen this also. All of those women are now dead. Some died in their 70's, some in their 80's, some in their 90's. See a pattern?

I am extremely skeptical that any female human in the Anglosphere under the age of 70 is capable of anything even remotely close to that degree of loyalty. And every years, as the Boomers age, that floor will move up one year.

(Problem was, she didn't hesitate to lay into my grandfather if she felt like it. But one else was allowed to. )

Oh, well, I can find "loyal" women like that even today. And they will sprain their arms patting themselves on the back about what "good wives" they are, too. The pathetic thing is, by modern standards, they are amazingly good, so long as they don't decide to frivorce.

Lowering the standards for personal behavior enough, and everyone is special. Hugs and gold stars for all!

I am extremely skeptical that any female human in the Anglosphere under the age of 70 is capable of anything even remotely close to that degree of loyalty.

Yeesh, hyperbolize much? This is what Signe was talking about.

Since you've encompassed all of Anglo-womanhood, I will point out that you can be as skeptical as you like, but the fact is, as an Anglo woman under 70, I am loyal to my husband. Furthermore, I don't lay into him in front of anyone else. I am a submissive wife who takes pride in her position relative to her husband.

I stand by this:Signe, thanks for an example of what VD wrote about in the OP. I replied as a man, based on my own experience with women.

SigneAnd based on your own experience, you pronounced the differing experiences of others impossible.

Where did I do that? Be specific.

We can go back and forth playing the game of "who's more solipsistic" and "who doesn't actually want to talk about a solution", but that won't really get anyone anywhere useful, will it?

I already have a solution - Game - and it works in reality. You apparently want to peddle the same old NAWALT cowshit for Team Woman as a "solution".

No, I acknowledge your life experience. I just pointed out it's not universal nor does it have to be.

Yeah, yah, NAWALT is such a new and different way to deflect from reality. A Manbecause my opinion is ungood in Team Woman terms.SigneYour opinion is damning of feminism, as it should be. But it's also an opinion that could potentially get in the way of a real, true solution: getting rid of Team Woman by understanding that Team Woman is the misapplied instinct to defend "my group".

Team Woman is Team Woman is Team Woman. Period. The Feminine Imperative exists, and all the NAWALT's possible doesn't change that fact.

I'm not sure why anything short of throwing up one's hands in despair or abject self-flagellation proves that a girl is batting for "Team Woman".

Women play for Team Woman because of their now documented 4x ingroup preference. All the NAWALT's won't change that. The default mode is Team Woman all the way, all the time. Some women can be trained to dial that back from, oh, 11 to some lower number - like, maybe, 50% of the time. That's a great success by modern standards, and could make someone almost tolerable to be around. However, in the aggregate, it's not going to make any dent in the two 40's - 40% divorce rate, 40% single babymomma rate. Those two rates pretty much point to a downhill for this civilization.

A ManThe alternative - to admit that some men find women to be untrustworthy based upon their own hard-earned experience

SigneOn the contrary. I admit it freely. There's a problem here, and it's a horrible injustice. You shouldn't have to feel that way; nobody should ever have given you cause.

Thanks for the admission. Doesn't change the facts on the ground, but it makes you non-typical.

A Man- rouses up your in-group preference because (all together, now) the collective is the personal.

SigneOne of the rules of Vox's blogs that I've learned is that people are within their rights to respond in the same manner they're addressed. In this case, I was saying something neutral and, I hoped, useful, and you came back with a variant "Yeah right."

And you came back with NAWALT. In case you are unaware, that isn't much of a logical argument. Some men have heard or read it before - more than once, in fact - and all it induces is contempt.

SigneBelieve it or not, I'm trying to help YOU here.

Believe it or not, NAWALT is not really helpful.

Signe You're spouting despair based on your experiences ("Not possible; I didn't see that happen so it doesn't happen").

You confuse realism with despair. Is it despair to state "There is no known way to exceed the speed of light"? No, reality. Nothing new, either.

The Feminine Imperative exists - it can be seen in the literature of Flaubert and Tolstoy, in Balzac, in Shakespeare, etc. The FI is unleashed in the modern era, without let or hindrance, and that includes hypergamy. As a result, the 100% loyal woman may exist as some Platonic ideal, but has no corresponding manifestation in reality. NAWALT is handwaving, not an argument.

Speaking for my marriage alone: "I already have a solution - Game - and it works in reality." - This.

RLB didn't have the internet much less Roissy or AG, however he did have a very woman aware gay friend that mentored him after his disastrous feminist led relationships.

From observation and trial and error, that Delta's game was tight by the time he met me. I wouldn't have married him without it. And his ability to balance the Alpha characteristics with his delta tendencies has kept me loyal (he lets down his hair, so to speak, for a bit and then throws me a neg or an out of the blue slap on the ass just to keep the sparks alive).

So, though A Man comes off a bit terse, what's he's saying is real for the high percentage of non Alpha/Sigma's out there. Game is really the only response men have left (those that even want to participate anymore) now that feminism has encroached every area of our lives and engrained itself into the female mind.

Stickwick: "Since they fail to meet the standards you outlined, this suggests their unhappy marriages might actually be their own fault."

I suspect that might be part of it. There's one in particular who is somewhat recently divorced. Her behavior and personality have tempted to say "no wonder Ex dumped you" more than once. But she seems too emotionally fragile to take that well.

Since you've encompassed all of Anglo-womanhood, I will point out that you can be as skeptical as you like, but the fact is, as an Anglo woman under 70, I am loyal to my husband. Furthermore, I don't lay into him in front of anyone else. I am a submissive wife who takes pride in her position relative to her husband.

And Stickwick, a red-pill woman, responds to a blanket statement of skepticism (note: not a definitive statement, but skepticism) by saying I four times in a short paragraph.

And Stickwick, a red-pill woman, responds to a blanket statement of skepticism (note: not a definitive statement, but skepticism) by saying I four times in a short paragraph.

Proving what, Anonymous?

Had A Man said he believed the vast majority of Anglo women under 70 aren't capable of that kind of loyalty, he would have made a valid statement of skepticism. However, he didn't express mere skepticism, but rather the sort Richard Dawkins expresses when he says he's extremely skeptical there is any evidence anywhere in the universe even remotely close to supporting the existence of God. It's superficially honest, but what Dawkins is really doing is covering what is effectively a positive statement about the non-existence of God with a veneer of skepticism in order to avoid looking like a complete idiot. Likewise, A Man has made, under the cover of extreme skepticism, what is effectively a positive statement incorporating every single woman in a group of hundreds of millions of women. Hyperbolic statements like this are both silly and pointless, so my response was to mention at least one datum indicating he's wrong. That datum happens to be me, so that necessitated the use of the word I.

The one thing good about these little tics women have, is once they are known... *bingo* It's like having all vaults be made by one company, and learning they all have the same tricks to being jimmied. Then all you have to do is figure out what YOU want, in a woman, relationship.

One of the best things, about this tic, is it can used in various ways. Passion, in a woman, is one of the best 'backdoor' entry points, at least for me. Anger is one of the strongest of them. The other thing is, guilt, and other control measures, can be applied by association while negating the notion of such taking place, cleanly. As well, it can be used to distance a woman from other women, and to get her out of her shell through denial of her femininity at times. A woman is not equal, so when she tries that, she ends up at somebody's mercy.

The funny thing is, if you know some of these things, and even explain them to a woman? She still... *bingo* She simply cannot change what she is.

Anonymous: Would you have preferred it if Stickwick had referred to herself in the third person when giving her counterexample? How about if she had anonymized herself and asserted "There is a woman", etc? Or should she perhaps have used one single, run-on, comma-studded, rambling sentence, peppered with subordinate clauses and conjunctions, that kept the use of "I" to a single instance at the cost of readability?

You are provably wrong, Anonymous. This has nothing to do with taking it personally. The notion that most Anglo women today are not capable of the kind of loyalty described is reasonable, and had A Man simply stated that, it would have elicited no response. But he de facto stated that every single woman under 70 -- that includes me, by definition, not by solipsism -- is incapable of nowhere near the level of loyalty described. It's a factually incorrect statement, and it's absurd.

Consider developing the habit of cutting off the hamsterbation between the first remark you make and her uttering a reflex response -- you can see it when her forehead starts to wrinkle or she starts fidgeting, and you have a window while she's trying to formulate the verbal ejaculate -- and immediately say something like, "That's what I appreciate about you; we can have a discussion without you taking personal offense." Especially if you must interact with certain women for your work, you should consider this sort of conditioning. Bonus points if you make clear to her that you aren't on "Team Men" but instead are an equal-opportunity misanthrope (they always thinks that is where you come from, because, since Hilary Clinton earning a dollar somehow benefits all women, they assume that Bill Clinton getting with a fat girl somehow benefits all men).

I meant my comment above to be seen as playfully making a point - Stingray

I don't know why, but it made me think of a Latina woman I know who is a treat to watch when someone makes a comment about her man. "Oh no you di'n't" head swaying back and forth, then she gets in their face and gives them a lickin' in Spanish. :)

I earned some serious daughter-in-law cred early on in our marriage. His mom and sister were bitching about his past and tearing into him. I stood up and said, "look, I understand, but if you ever talk about him that way in front of our children, I will stop bringing our children around you." And then I left. My MIL looked at her daughter and said, "I think we just had a fight." They've always respected that and have never said a degrading word about my husband in front of our children. My MIL is the same about my FIL, hell hath no fury than that woman should someone speak poorly about her husband.

NAWALT is not a solution, no, though while you've brought it up, it IS an observable fact that not all women are necessarily going to conform to a general behavior pattern that the extreme majority of women do.

But since that wasn't my point, I'm not sure why you want to chant it back at me in a sneering tone as if that negates what I actually WAS saying.

What I WAS saying, if you will take a moment and look at it, is that Team Woman is a bad thing, a misapplication of our instinct to defend "my group", and it's been given its head because feminism wants us not to defend our REAL group--husbands and family.

I said that women need to break our current feminist programming and restore our groupism to its proper channels. That means you men, on the individual basis of "my man", in case you weren't aware.

We can't do it alone; it's a two-sex job, considering that we're talking society-level changes.

And by the way, "encouraging" women to break the ties of Team Woman and other, equally inappropriate groupisms? One way to do that is Game, yes. I never said anything negative about Game; you injected that into the conversation yourself because you made an assumption. It'd be better (just, right, good) if none of you men ever had to bring Game, if we women would just behave ourselves on our own steam, but it is what it is right now, probably as long as we're under the curse.

Hey, you have every right to give up if you want to--but taking potshots at people who haven't, who are trying to find a solution? Which sex isn't looking for solutions but wants affirmation or sympathy, again?